I was raised in a ‘newspaper family’ and I find that VTDigger provides the in-depth coverage, analysis, and commentary on statewide issues that the print media can only summarize. I love my local ‘papers’ but I rely on VTDigger to keep me informed about Statehouse issues.

-- David Gross, East Hardwick

THANK YOU We Did It!

Thanks to the support of over 600 readers, we were able to meet our $50,000 second quarter goal.

The long-proposed “death with dignity” bill will have to wait another year to see if Vermont legislators support or oppose it.

In an 18-11 vote Thursday afternoon, the Senate voted against suspending the rules to allow discussion of the bill, which the Senate Committee on Health and Welfare attached as an amendment to a bill prohibiting minors from using tanning beds. Supporters and opponents of the bill filled every seat in the Senate to watch lawmakers debate the justification for such an unorthodox proposal.

Critics of the last-minute amendment said it was a blatant violation of the rules that allow only “germane” bills to be attached as amendments.

Senators have proposed the bill, which would allow terminally ill patients to decide to end their lives with the assistance of a doctor, for the past 10 years but it has never reached full debate on the floor.

Sen. Hinda Miller, who introduced the amendment in the Senate Health and Welfare committee earlier this week, said the proposal was “destiny.” This is Miller’s last session since she is not running for re-election.

The proposal, Miller said, was a last resort.

“There are certain situations where the rules are made to be broken,” Miller said. “I think this is something bigger than the rules right now.”

Supporters said committee chairs have consistently blocked the bill from getting to the floor.

“For 10 years we’ve had this bill, and for 10 years it’s stayed in committees with no hope of getting out,” said Sen. Claire Ayer, chair of the Health and Welfare committee.

Those who voted against the bill’s relevance to the tanning bill argued for the policy of creating legislation based on thorough testimony.

Sen. Dick Sears, chair of the Senate Committee on Judiciary, spoke strongly against the move by the Health and Welfare committee. His committee took testimony on the death with dignity bill. Three members opposed it, he said, and two supported it. When Sen. Alice Nitka, who did not support the bill, was hospitalized, the committee was deadlocked, prohibiting a vote, Sears said.

Sears opposed the bill, but he said his main complaint was the end-run around traditional process of a committee hearing testimony and making an informed decision.

“I can take licks, and I can take hits, but when the process breaks down, we the Senate lose, and the people of Vermont are the bigger losers,” he said.

Although the Senate voted against suspending the traditional process to agree to discuss the bill, which Lt. Gov. Phil Scott deemed was not germane to the tanning bed issue, senators did discuss the underlying bill.

Sears warned against the potential risk of increased suicides due to the state “normalizing” the practice.

Others, including Sens. Diane Snelling and Dick McCormack, said much of the resistance to the underlying bill is grounded in religions that view suicide as a sin.

“My choices should not be restricted because of someone else’s religious preference,” Snelling said.

For many senators, just getting some sort of debate onto the floor was a victory.

Sen. Anthony Pollina voted for the bill in the Health and Welfare committee but against it on the Senate floor.

Pollina said limited discussion was better than none. He said he voted against discussing the bill on the merits because he had concerns that people would vote based on how they felt about the process rather than the death with dignity proposal.

“I had a fear that with the way in which it came to floor it would allow people on the fence to vote ‘no’ because they didn’t like the process,” he said.

Senate President Pro Tem John Campbell said “it came down to a matter of process.”

“It has to be done the right way,” Campbell said. “For anyone to think this bill was not going to go to Senate Judiciary, they have not read the bill. The entire bill deals with judicial issues.”

Campbell said the crux of the bill is to relieve doctors from liability for assisting patients in ending their lives, which is, he said, a judicial rather than a health issue.

The Vermont bill is based on an Oregon law that allows terminally ill patients to obtain a lethal dose of medication. Under the bill, patients would have to consult with multiple doctors, have a terminal diagnosis and be deemed of sound mind. Proponents say polls show a majority of Vermonters support a death with dignity bill. Some medical organizations have lobbied against it, saying it violates the ethics of doctors and nurses.

Patient Choices Vermont, which supports the bill, issued a statement praising senators for bringing the issue to the Senate floor.

“Despite this decision, we appreciate the attempt by our Senate supporters to bring this bill to the Senate floor for a vote,” it read. “We celebrate their courage and willingness to discuss an issue that is so important to so many Vermonters.”

Editor’s note: Sen. Hinda Miller was misquoted in this story. She said the proposal was “destiny,” not “fate.” The story has been corrected.

Comments

Karen Julius:

April 12, 2012 at 9:51 pm

What does tanning have to do with death with dignity? This article is confusing but more importantly, it’s sad that again this issue is pushed away. The day will come when death with dignity becomes a red hot issue that someone wishes had been deemed important. It happens every day … to other people.

Re: your reporting of Death with Dignity on the Senate Floor.
I said ” destiny” not “fate.”
Destiny is in our hands; fate makes us victims. Destiny, we lead with our heart, our minds and our actions. Please correct this word. Words are important, as we know.
Love and light,
Senator Hinda Miller

Your article fails to mention that it is not just medical organizations and religious people who are against the bill — many people with disabilities, and our organizations, have been against the bill from the beginning. The fact that the disability rights issues inherent in the bill never appear in the article, and that no mention is given of the opposition to the bill of groups like Disability Rights Vermont, is indicative of the problem with the bill itself: a failure to take our concerns seriously and discuss all of the implications of the bill for our lives. Our erasure from the discussion of the bill does not bode well for having our voices heard should such a bill ever become law.

I support this bill, but Senator Miller was wrong in this end run, and the full Senate rightly sent it packing. We can argue destiny and feelings all day long until we are all blue in the face, but if our government can’t function by its own rules, then it may as well go packing. For myself, I’m embarassed this happened in a Vermont chamber. Even if I agree with the bill, I don’t want one law passed without it passed correctly and by the book. And I want to have faith that the legislators I vote for to go to Montpelier will do their jobs the right way. If you lose a fight, so be it.

VTDigger.org requires that all commenters identify themselves by their authentic first and last names. Initials, pseudonyms or screen names are not permissible. The purpose of this policy is to encourage a civil discourse among neighbors who are willing to stand behind their identities and their comments.

As a result of our comment policy, VTDigger.org has created a safe zone for readers who wish to engage in a thoughtful discussion on a range of subjects, regardless of where they stand. We hope you join the conversation.

Privacy policy

VTDigger.org does not share specific information about our readers with other entities. Email addresses we collect through our subscription list and comment submissions are kept private.

We use Google analytics to generate aggregated data regarding the size and geographic distribution of our readership. This information helps us gauge how many readers come to the website and what towns they live in. It does not include addresses or other identifying characteristics about our readers.